Police-union policy isn't meant to rob taxpayers

Last week, the high-priced suits at the institute sent out a news release letting everyone know about their lawsuit against the Phoenix Law Enforcement Association and the city of Phoenix. It is aimed at putting a stop to what is called "release time."

The case is being heard in Maricopa County Superior Court.

If the Goldwater folks win, it could put an end to the practice of allowing PLEA officers to perform union work while collecting their salaries.

When the lawsuit initially was filed, Clint Bolick, director of the Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation at Goldwater, released a statement saying, "Taxpayer money should be used exclusively for public purposes. The practice of shoveling millions of taxpayer dollars into union coffers must be stopped."

Bolick calls the practice a violation of the state Constitution's "gift clause."

"This is our third lawsuit using the gift clause," Bolick told me awhile back. "And this is our first that doesn't challenge some form of corporate welfare. But the language of the gift clause and the intent of the gift clause didn't turn on who the beneficiary of the gift is. At the Goldwater Institute, we view gifts of public money to be obnoxious regardless of who the beneficiary is."

That sounds good, but the lawsuit appears to be more about the institute's distaste for unions than it is about the gift clause. Mostly because release time isn't a gift. It's negotiated.

It is part of the contract worked out between the city and PLEA, something that has long been a part of union contracts between cities and police associations all over the country.

It's not hidden. It's not sinister.

However, removing it will make it tougher for union officials to represent officers who need help.

The lawyers at Goldwater, along with their many fans in the Arizona Legislature, like that idea. They seem determined to make life as difficult as possible for police officers, firefighters, teachers and government workers.

In other words, regular folks.

In 2011, as part of an article about pension reform for police officers and other first responders, Byron Schlomach of the Goldwater Institute told The Arizona Republic's Craig Harris: "It's nice they have figured out a way to rob us. This is ridiculous. How can anybody justify this?"

Personally, I do not believe our police officers got into the dangerous profession of law enforcement to rob us.

The Goldwater folks were also behind Proposition 113, the "Save Our Secret Ballot Amendment" that passed in Arizona two years ago.

Clint Bolick told me at the time, "People ought to be protected from being forced to join a union or from having unions recognized where there is not a clear and voluntary expression of majority support. The unions say there is a lot of employer coercion (prior to an election), but I can't think of a better mechanism to weigh genuine worker sentiment than the secret ballot."

Prop. 113 wasn't designed to protect anyone's vote but simply to make it more difficult for workers to unionize.

The Goldwater Institute and their political pals don't like the idea of uppity working people acting collectively to improve their lives.

The institute helped legislators with a series of anti-union bills last year.

Who knows how many more are to come?

The issue of release time did not need to go to court.

PLEA and the city can negotiate a change at any time. Both the city and the union see benefit to the arrangement, however.

Bolick is a smart guy and a very good lawyer. He'd tell you the Goldwater Institute wants only to protect taxpayers and, through this lawsuit, is doing us a favor.

Then again, the release-time case could be appealed no matter which way a court rules.

And then appealed again. And so on.

That could cost the city -- meaning us -- a lot of money, and it could raise the level of anxiety and resentment among the men and women who daily risk their lives for the citizens they serve -- meaning us.